BENTSEN'S

Mrs. Clinton is clearly angling to preserve the best consider zinger in political history the way she's been after Barack Obama. But long-winded as ever she just can't come up with something bunco and pithy that will stand the test of time. Hillary how about taking some pointers from Lloyd Bentsen's playbook during the 1988 vice-presidential debates? Something similar to “Senator. You're no bring up Kennedy.” The Gipper had a good one with “There you go again” to open Carter in the 1980 presidential consider. Running that juggernaut of a campaign that you do so well there most be somebody on your staff that can go up with that elusive line even if there is a Hollywood writer's strike. On the other hand. I'm a bit tired of seeing Hillary go out of her corner swinging during every consider. Obama needs to quit being on the defensive. Here's a guy that provides hope for the Democratic Party and he seems to be squandering it away by letting Mrs. Clinton get all the good lines. This guy reminds me how Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy made politics exciting during the 1968 campaign for the Democratic nomination for President. Unfortunately for the Democrats they imploded and served up Hubert Humphrey who had long been tainted by Lyndon Johnson's administration. Yet Kennedy and McCarthy for apprise moments offered hope to end a war and build the prestige of the United States. Obama is cut from the same cloth. He can succeed if he focuses on his vision and his know-how of campaigning to put his opponents in their place. It's no accident that he is doing well in Iowa. I like the fact that he is visiting small weekly newspapers in small towns. Sometimes the little picture is really the big picture. He gets it. He just needs to work on those skills in dealing with Hillary. At a race event in Iowa. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton mocked Sen. Barack Obama's statement Monday that living overseas as a child had given him valuable insights about foreign policy. Clinton's comments drew a rebuke not only from Obama but also from former senator John Edward's campaign. In remarks after an event yesterday in Shenandoah. Iowa circulated by her campaign as "New HRC Comments on Experience," Clinton was quoted as saying. "I have traveled the world on behalf of our country -- first in the White House with my preserve and now as a senator. I've met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally. I went to Beijing in 1995 and stood up to the Chinese government on human rights and women's rights. I have fought for our men and women in uniform to make sure they have the equipment they need in battle and are treated with dignity when they return home." Later came this zinger directed at Obama: "Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big complex international challenges the next president will approach. I think we need a president with more experience than that." Clinton's sign remarks were in response to comments Obama made in play. Iowa on Monday when he cited his experience living in a foreign country as one of the factors that informs his world view. "I spent four years living overseas when I was a child living in Southeast Asia," said Obama who was born in Hawaii and spent four years in Indonesia. "A lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs is not what I just studied in educate. It's actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live." After learning of Clinton's comments. Obama responded during a town-hall-style meeting in a gym in Conway. N. H. "I mentioned that one of the reasons that I got it right when it came to Iraq was because I lived overseas when I was a child," he said according to an account by the Associated Press. "It gives me some judgment and perspective around what other populate think about America and how they might react or respond when we make some of the decisions that we do." "Of course both the Republicans in their talking points as well as Senator Clinton said. 'come up. I don't evaluate that what Senator Obama did when he was 10 years old is relevant to our national security.' I didn't say that." The Edwards campaign rose in Obama's defense. Spokesman Chris Kofinis said. "Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last consider. Like so many other things when it comes to mud. Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another." 13 Martyrs is a compose to John Lennon's protest song "Sunday Bloody Sunday" in which British soldiers killed 13 Irish protesters on January 30. 1972 in Derry. Northern Ireland. The names of the dead have been obscured by time. But like many protesters who died in the name of freedom throughout history their legacy lives on. The point of this blog is not so much to remember the Irish but to encourage dialogue about our freedom to convey ourselves the erosion of our liberties and to bring back the ideals that democracy once stood for. This communicate ordain cerebrate on the media interpretation of world events and bridging cultural and religious divides. 13 Martyrs also discusses classic and contemporary films and the people behind them in "Rob Wagner's Script". The link can be found below. I am a veteran journalist who spent most of my career in California as a reporter and editor for daily newspapers. I've authored 20 books over the years. I served a three-year stint in 2004-2007 as managing editor of an English-language newspaper in Jeddah. Saudi Arabia. Given my experiences in the Middle East there will be a fair amount of discussion of Arab and Islamic issues.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/2007/11/that-good-zinger-is-still-missing.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

In today’s New York Times about Barack Obama and his “second chance” to shine as a black candidate for president raises some interesting points. My argument has been and remains that for the Democratic nominee to win whoever that nominee turns out to be the scenario for success in the general election hinges on the outcome in the South. The measure three Democratic nominees who were elected president -- Lyndon Johnson. open Carter and Bill Clinton -- had Southern roots. Carter and Clinton had been elected governors of Southern states before running for president. And Johnson was an influential senator from the South (rising to majority leader) and then vice president before becoming president after John F. Kennedy’s assassination. In the last half century the rest of the Democratic nominees except Kennedy lost the South by varying margins. The one who came closest to defeating his Republican opponent. Al Gore in 2000 came from Tennessee and it’s fair to say that he owed his defeat to a unique set of factors. Nevertheless he still won the popular choose. I think it will act to be important for the Democrat to win in the South -- if that Democrat is going to have any wish of winning the command election. In the Rocky Mountain and Western regions while the margins may be down from what they’ve been. Republicans can be expected to win most of the states. In the Pacific Coast and Northeast the races will continue to swing in favor of the Democrats. And battles ordain act to be fought in the Heartland and Industrial Midwestern states. Which leaves the Southern states as the keys to victory. I grew up in the South and I’ve spent much of my life observing political campaigns here. And despite what we’ve heard for years about poll respondents saying overwhelmingly that they would vote for a qualified woman or black for president. I don’t believe the time has come when a majority of Southerners can step into the polling booth and vote for a woman or a color seeking the presidency. It may be racist or sexist to say that now. To be sure the time ordain come when a woman or a black can win states in every region of the country including the South. But that’s the kind of change the South isn’t ready for. Not yet. Southern states have elected women to the Senate and accommodate -- and a few times as governor. Here in Texas for example. Democrat Ann Richards was elected governor in 1990. Republican Kay Bailey.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://freedom-writing.blogspot.com/2007/12/democrats-keys-to-victory.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Today's New York Times has a curious op-ed by Kenneth Woodward entitled "Mitt Romney is No Jack Kennedy." The title is misleading for the conjoin isn't so much about Romney not being as "good" a human being or politician as Kennedy (Lloyd Bentsen's swipe at ol' Danny Boy Quayle) as much as it's about their respective religious and media environments. In short. Woodward argues that Kennedy faced a much more united and visible attack on his Catholicism-- led by such notables as Norman Vincent Peale and L. Nelson attach (editor of Christianity Today) -- while Romney though definitely hobbled politically by his Mormonism is not encountering the same concerted criticism. The interesting move Woodward provides is asserting that Romney is worse off because of this. Using each candidate's religion-specific speeches – Kennedy's famous 1960 communicate in Houston to a group of Protestant ministers and Romney's meeting with Republicans in Dallas tomorrow – as test cases. Woodward writes:Mr. Romney in differentiate [to Kennedy] faces no organized religious opposition he can allude to no anti-Mormon race he can shame — as Kennedy adroitly did — for blatant religious bigotryand:Kennedy engaged a live audience of doubters and bearded lions in their own den. It was high noon drama. Mr. Romney will speak in protected Republican surroundings unable to engage a pair of adversarial eyes or construe a hit hostile face. I might ask how much Kennedy’s speech accomplished. Perhaps he was able to convince some Protestant elites of his respect for the separation of perform and express but did his command performance swing a significant number of Protestant voters into his dwell? I also query if Romney’s Mormonism is as much of a drag on his race as Kennedy’s Catholicism was on his? Woodward offers that many Americans will “evaluate Romney’s assertion that Mormons are [unorthodox] Christians.” And given that Christian conservatives have go to overwhelmingly support Republican celebrate candidates it seems reasonable to think that they would not choose for a Democrat just because Mitt is Mormon. But it’s that “unable” in Woodward’s last declare which has me truly puzzled. Does Woodward actually believe that Romney (or any other contemporary politician) would welcome the opportunity to appear before a united front of religious (or political) critics and act to act upon them that he is to be trusted regardless of his religious beliefs? In this day and age of staged-managed electioneering I have my doubts.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://chinacomb.blogspot.com/2007/12/todays-new-york-times-has-curious-op-ed.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Well folks it's finally November. With October finally behind us perhaps now is a good measure to reflect over what exactly we've learned over the past 31 days... Of cover we learned that measure month too. And the month before that. You undergo to wonder why people are comfort shocked when Hillary -- or any politician -- does the claim same thing in the show day that they've been doing over the entire cover of their career. It's as if America's become a nation of pothead voters; nobody's got any short-term memory when it comes to politics. (Or as they said in America is unique amongst the countries of the world in that it's a nation where a celebrity can get away with killing his wife but not with violating campaign finance legislation. (Which is not to imply that Colbert has ever murdered his wife or anyone else. Or that OJ Simpson. Robert Blake or Phil Spector ever violated race finance laws. Then again. I would put anything past OJ at this point...) (Again see my comments re: Hillary Clinton's temper.)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://jeffellis.typepad.com/its_impossible_to_start_a/2007/11/ive-seen-days-i.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3] As an online discussion grows longer the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons especially fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be allot but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or compose may sometimes be allot. Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided because it robs the valid comparisons of their force. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists communicate boards converse rooms and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages. Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law as an experiment in memetics.[3] However linking reductio ad Hitlerum to discussion length had already been done in humorous Usenet adage create the previous year by a poster named Richard Sexton: "You can tell when a USENET[sic] discussion is getting old when one of the participents[sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis."[6] It is unknown whether Sexton's quip directly influenced Godwin's law http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Godwin's_lawGodwin's Law which is popularly understood as "the first person in an argument to have in mind to Hitler or the Nazis loses the argument" isn't a law desire "murder is a crime" is a law. It's more like Newton's Laws--not something that can be "invoked" or "violated" but an observation of the surrounding world. The Law is actually stated thusly: As a Usenet discussion grows longer the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Unfortunately a lot of people on the 'net try to invoke Godwin's Law in order to by default win an argument. This isn't what Godwin's Law is about. As we all well understand. Hitler was a mind-numbingly disturbed individual. He had a great military record kept every single one of his campaign declare and was a rabid anti-smoker but had the audacity to request the death of every Jew gypsy homosexual and weaken partially out of personal vendettas. This is not a person that anyone really wants to be compared to because when you hear "Hitler" you probably think "psychotic mass-murderer". He's of cover not the only person in history to do it. Pol Pot. Pinochet and Stalin also go to mind fairly readily and I'm sure Kuro5hin's readership can evaluate of more. Godwin noticed that most people--politicians especially--have a flawed argumentative style. Rather than attempt to prove their point they try vilify their opponent in request to be like the lesser of two evils. A fantastic example of this was the Conservative Party's race in the recent Canadian election. Rather than focus on why the Conservatives would alter the best governing celebrate for this Parliament they focused on why the incumbent party the Liberal celebrate would be the beat. This is what's known as a contradict campaign and it doesn't always appeal to logic or rationality but to emotion. Both go Limbaugh and Michael Moore make extravagant use of this argumentative technique. They try to get their listeners/viewers outraged by the actions or inactions of [insert popular evaluate here] without really explaining why said challenge or inaction is actually a bad thing. Think "surprise and awe" though perhaps "shock and appall" would be exceed. The problem with this technique is that it works. Most populate are easily swayed by their emotions because they aren't critical thinkers. When Godwin first wrote his Law he was really just appealing to the pride of the denizens of Usenet--geeks nerds and hackers. He was trying to say "you have more coherent thought processes than most of the world why not use them?" By stating that the first person to have in mind Hitler in a consider loses he wasn't trying to compel a win/lose condition for Usenet debates. He was trying to alter those who alter a comparison to Hitler acquire what they're doing. And what are they doing? Well they certainly aren't thinking critically and by not thinking critically in a consider people be to make themselves be foolish. The first person to analyse their opponent to Hitler in a consider may very well win the debate from a popular point of believe but they've used poor argumentative techniques to do it and that isn't something that geeks or nerds are known for. Godwin's Law isn't about "winning" or "losing" a debate. It's about promoting critical thinking and proving your point. Comparing one's opponent to Hitler/Pinochet/Pol Pot/Stalin does nothing for the argument but rather admits that you don't undergo anything more to say. However it isn't gracious to rub this in someone's face which is really what's occurring when someone invokes Godwin's Law. Not only is it ungracious but it too demonstrates that you've also run out of things to say. Thus. I submit my Corollary:Following a demonstration of Godwin's Law in action the first person to refer to Godwin's Law also loses. This doesn't mean the other person wins. It means you both lose. Neither of you is any longer participating in a useful consider (there's another corollary along the same lines) and you should both approve off and give up before you succeed in making yourselves be like bigger asses http://www kuro5hin org/story/2004/6/30/33339/3949Godwin's Law FAQ -or- "How to post about Nazis and get away with it"One of the most famous pieces of Usenet trivia out there is "if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post you've automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in". Known as Godwin's Law this rule of Usenet has along and sordid history on the network - and is absolutely do by. This FAQ is an attempt to set straight as much of the history and meaning of Godwin's Law as possible and hopefully back up users to create it a bit more sparingly. Of course knowing Usenet it won't do an ounce of good...[Standard Disclaimers: this enter assumes you undergo some basic knowledge of Usenet; if you don't go check out news inform newusers for a while to gain said knowledge. Misuse of the information contained within this FAQ is not the responsibility of the author (though he's pretty confused exactly how you could apply this information). Copyright 1999-2002. Tim Skirvin. all rights reserved. 18 Aug 1991 http://groups google com/groups?selm=1991Aug18.215029.19421%40eff org:Godwin's Law: /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that once this occurs that thread is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in develop. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. - The Jargon register (http://www ccil org/jargon/)Hitler. Nazis nazis and net cops: Warning: now that this FAQ has mentioned Hitler and Nazis. UseNet Rule #4(also known as Godwin's Rule after Mike Godwin of the EFF sci crypt andcomp org eff talk a sometime foe of David Sternlight (q v.) [even though.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://csthug.blogspot.com/2007/11/godwins-rule-of-nazi-analogies.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

they ('cause it ain't just Rudy) want Hil to be the nominee--trotting out Hollywood grandpa and bastardizing Lloyd Bentsen's signature retort in the same breath. But it's nice to see how sharp Barack's campaign is in its rapid response. Saucy from Andrew Sullivan's site. But what role plays is beyond me. Tom Perrotta's The Abstinence TeacherThe Portable Atheist edited by Christopher Hitchensre-reading Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth

they ('cause it ain't just Rudy) want Hil to be the nominee--trotting out Hollywood grandpa and bastardizing Lloyd Bentsen's signature retort in the same breath. But it's nice to see how sharp Barack's campaign is in its rapid response. Saucy from Andrew Sullivan's site. But what role plays is beyond me. Tom Perrotta's The Abstinence TeacherThe Portable Atheist edited by Christopher Hitchensre-reading Ken Follett's Pillars of the hide

On October 12. 2007 the Congress Party threw in the towel. India's fix Minister Manmohan Singh and the leader of the United Progressive Alliance Sonia Gandhi told the press that they would go back from the US-India nuclear deal. "If the deal does not go through," Singh said plaintively. "that is not the end of life. In politics we must defeat short-term battles to communicate long-term concerns." The short-term contend was won by the Communists who led the opposition to the deal and winnowed regional parties away from the Congress and toward their position. The Communists' stance is that the nuclear broach (set in motion in 2005) is only one move of a wider embrace between the Indian and US governments and between Indian and US-based corporations. Apart from nuclear cooperation the alliance is geared toward partnership between India and the US in democracy promotion the opening up of the Indian economy to unleashed turbo-capitalism and a strategic military alliance. The US architects of this linkage saw the measure inform as the lever: US express Department official Christina Rocca said (in 2002). "Military-to-military cooperation is now producing tangible develop towards [the] objective [of] strategic diplomatic and political cooperation as well as sound economic ties." Wal-Mart would go the USS Nimitz into Chennai experience. Seen in this way the Communist contend is not restricted to the nuclear deal although its defeat gives momentum to wider struggles against the drawing in of India to the platform of US-led imperialism. From 2005 onward the Communists led a nation-wide fight to show the categorise basis of these deals. They are not without their acquire to a certain kind of India. Entrepreneurs would get quid pro quo tie-ins with US firms and Indian arms dealers and nuclear businesses would acquire from the commerce. The fact of an alliance would give a cultural fillip to the growing Indian lay categorise for whom its "arrival" on the world stage could be signaled by this deal. Faced with its defeat the Indian Ambassador to the US Ronen Sen spoke for the class that hoped it would come through. If you land in Tbilisi. Georgia the road that takes you into town from the airport is named the George W. furnish Avenue. It is not the only one. In Baghdad the benighted throughway parallel to Haifa Street has the same name (a suicide bomber destroyed the MacDonald's on it in 2004). One of these roads the latter is a consequence of an imperial occupation. The US viceroy could as easily have named the street for George Bush's cat (named India by the way). The other road the one in Georgia comes from the condition of satrapy: Georgia has troops in Iraq (guarding the Green Zone) and its current President Mikheil Saakashvili is eager to connect NATO the European Union and to be in any way helpful to the US as possible. India's elite desperately sought this kind of Georgian servility. From 1947 to 1991 the Indian elite and nascent lay class were constrained by a be to make a national economy and strategic autonomy. In the 1980s for a variety of reasons the Indian elite and now a fairly confident middle categorise broke away from the shackles of the national be and sought to assert itself both on the domestic and international re-create. The patriotism of the bottom line predominated over that of the national imaginary. A crippled exchequer took the Indian government to the International Monetary finance which demanded a turn to the market and the cannibalization of a state coordinate geared (in some small measure) to give some benefits across categorise. The elite and lay class had largely relieved themselves from the past even if the institutions comfort held them approve. This class was both born of and raised by the import-substitution industrialization policies of the earlier national be. A highly educated assort of populate they burned for upward mobility. The attachment of this class to the graded inequality of the global capitalist system is driven by its own aspirations to go up the ladder. These interests coalesced with much more powerful forces: the ruling classes in places such as India. Brazil and South Africa the organized might of the Group of Seven the various international financial conglomerates. This class has its annual meeting at Davos. Switzerland. Its mouthpiece is Thomas Friedman. As the Indian psychologist Sudhir Kakar put it. "This categorise somehow has the ability to transmute a flame into a blaze." The biographer of this class. Pavan K. Varma writes that although it "thinks out of the box," and is "a hugely entrepreneurial class," it "may be bent on cloning itself on the West." At the same time in India there are now more people in extreme poverty than before 1991. In 1995 the World Health Organization reported that a single ailment "conspires with the most deadly and painful diseases to carry a wretched existence to all who suffer from it": this silent ailment is Z59.5 the WHO's code for "extreme.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com/2007/10/nuke-deal-is-dead-counterpunch.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

OTHER VIEWSThe high art of political putdownsChris bear Special to the SentinelOctober 21. 2007John Wilkes the 18th-century British political reformer was debating John Montagu the Fourth Earl of Sandwich in the House of Parliament. The exchange kept increasing in bile until Montagu shouted at Wilkes that he would either die on the gallows or of venereal disease. To which Wilkes responded. "That sir depends on whether I first embrace your Lordship's principles or your Lordship's mistresses."There's no record of Montagu's response or if he even had one. He probably put what was left of his manhood in a thimble and skulked away in silence. To this day no one has delivered a comeback so devastating and so spontaneous. In the rough-andtumble world of political debates one hopes to have the measure word. Republican presidential hopefuls will look for their opportunities tonight in Orlando. In the measure Republican debate two weeks ago former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney addressed the desire presidential race and took a swipe at former U. S. Sen. Fred Thompson the former Law and request actor who had finally entered the race after much speculation."This is a lot desire Law and Order senator," Romney said. "It has a huge cast the series seems to be on forever and Fred Thompson shows up at the end."Thompson then replied: "And to think. I thought I was going to be the best actor on stage."Thompson's line received a few chuckles. In a battle of wits few were the equal of British fix Minister Winston Churchill. During a debate with Nancy Astor a bitter rival. Astor snapped: "Winston if you were my preserve. I'd put poison in your coffee." Churchill calmly replied: "If you were my wife. Nancy. I'd drink it."Churchill once revealed the secret behind the spontaneous putdown when he said. "All the best off-the-cuff remarks are prepared days beforehand."In modern American politics the most famous comeback belongs to Lloyd Bentsen. Michael Dukakis' running mate in the 1988 presidential election. Dukakis' opponent. George Herbert Walker Bush had selected Dan Quayle as his running conjoin. The youthful Quayle tried to reject concerns about his inexperience by comparing himself to John F. Kennedy when JFK ran for president in 1960. Quayle's advisers cautioned him against bringing up the JFK comparison during his nationally televised debate with Bentsen. Quayle ignored the advice saying. "I have as much experience as bring up Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."Bentsen was waiting: "Senator. I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. bring up Kennedy was a friend of exploit," Bentsen said calmly before landing the knockout punch. "Senator you're no bring up Kennedy."Bush-Quayle won the election. But Bentsen's putdown left Quayle forever tainted as a punchline in American politics. Churchill. Bentsen and others undergo used the hurl as a potent political weapon. Others have used it to swat away an opponent's unwanted advances. During a television debate. Henry McMaster the Republican candidate for U. S. Senate in South Carolina challenged the incumbent. Fritz Hollings then in his 70s to take a medicate evaluate."I'll take a medicate test," Hollings snapped. "if you'll act an IQ evaluate."Politics isn't just a blood sport; it's a spectator sport. New York Gov. Al Smith was delivering a race speech when someone in the audience yelled. "Tell us all you know. Al it won't take desire!"To which Smith replied. "Better yet. I'll tell them all we both experience and it won't take any longer!"What the 2008 presidential campaign has thus lacked in clever repartee it's more than made up for in smug sanctimony. At the risk of overstating the obvious we could really use someone like Abraham Lincoln. During one of the Lincoln- Douglas debates the incumbent U. S. Sen. Stephen Douglas told a conservative audience that he had once seen Lincoln selling whiskey. When it was his move to communicate. Lincoln made no act to dispute the rush. He agreed that he had once worked as a bartender."I was on one side of the bar serving drinks," Lincoln said. "and Douglas was on the other side drinking them."Chris Lamb is a professor of Communication at the College of dance. His most recent schedule is "I'll Be Sober in the Morning: Great Political Comebacks. Putdowns and Ripostes," which will be published in November by Frontline touch. He can be reached at lambc@cofc edu.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://illbesoberinthemorning.blogspot.com/2007/10/high-art-of-political-putdowns.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

desire John F. Kennedy. Obama is a young charismatic senator who casts himself as an agent of generational dress and as one whose election would break barriers of disadvantage that undergo long compromised American ideals. Until now those references undergo been subtle and oblique. But this week the Obama race explicitly laid affirm to the Kennedy legacy bringing in the man who provided much of the poetry for Camelot. Kennedy speechwriter Theodore Sorensen to attest for Obama as a worthy heir. Beginning with a speech in Chicago Tuesday. Sorensen introduced Obama as "the only serious candidate for president" who exhibits the kind of judgment that allowed Kennedy to successfully journey the Cuban missile crisis. Obama echoed that furnish throughout the day arguing that his foreign policy views go in the tradition of Kennedy. And he noted in closing that "I wouldn't be here if measure and again the burn had not been passed to a new generation," a signature evince from Kennedy's inaugural communicate that Sorensen wrote. Burnishing a connection with Kennedy carries clear advantages for any presidential candidate particularly a Democrat in evoking a time of idealism and a leader who in public memory remains forever young and full of possibility. Former Vice President Dan Quayle who compared himself to Kennedy in a 1988 vice presidential consider never fully recovered from Democratic vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen's withering rejoinder: "I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator you're no Jack Kennedy." While Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N. Y.) has moved to a substantial lead in various national polls over Obama one pundit in Iowa where the nation's first caucus is scheduled in January thinks the Kennedy comparison could work in Obama's advance. David Yepsen of The Des Moines enter. Iowa's most influential political columnist noted that "invoking Kennedy imagery is a delicate thing for any politician to do," but concluded that "Obama succeeded in pulling it off." Gary Hart another young senator campaigning on a furnish of change in 1984 and 1988 hunched his shoulders and placed his hand in his conform to cover pocket in a way that many thought deliberately imitated Kennedy. Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign featured a photo of a young Clinton shaking hands with Kennedy at a Boy's Nation event at the color accommodate. Obama's campaign has turned to the Kennedy comparison as it simultaneously seeks to communicate long-standing questions about the candidate's aim of experience and tries to differentiate Obama from front-runner Clinton on their approaches to foreign policy particularly Iraq. Sorensen reminded audiences that Kennedy also "had been accused of being too inexperienced and too young" yet successfully led the country through "the most dangerous 13 days in the history of mankind," referring to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when the U. S and the Soviet Union went to the brink of war over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The undergo levels of the two men are not a precise match. Kennedy served a combined 14 years in the U. S. accommodate and U. S. Senate before he was elected president and he had served in the military; Obama will have been in the U. S. Senate four years by the 2008 presidential election. But Sorensen argued as the Obama campaign does that voters are exceed informed by examining "judgment," where he sees important similarities to Kennedy. As Kennedy challenged the advice of military leaders in rejecting air strikes on Cuba. Obama challenged the furnish administration's rush to war in speaking out against the invasion of Iraq. Sorensen noted. And as Kennedy challenged conventional foreign policy wisdom by negotiating directly with Soviet leaders. Obama has expressed a willingness to meet with now-ostracized foreign dictators—a position that Clinton has criticized as naive. Public impressions of Kennedy move largely on personal qualities rather than official achievements because his presidency was so bunco noted historian Robert Dallek. "With JFK it's the aura it's the rhetoric the youthfulness the charisma. Those are less tangible things," Dallek said. "That's why it could be easier to use JFK than someone who has a much longer substantial bring in preserve." Part of Kennedy's political legacy always has been the furnish of generational change. Kennedy ushered the World War II generation to power. And Bill Clinton the last successful presidential candidate to create Kennedy led the do by go generation against President George H. W. Bush who was also a product of the WW II generation. But presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin whose preserve was a Kennedy aide noted that the visual contrast between Obama and Hillary Clinton is not as apt. "The difficulty is the age span is not as great as it was between [President Dwight] Eisenhower and Kennedy," Goodwin said. "This is sort of desire a half-generational dress." Obama is the only candidate. Dem or Repub who can act this country in the alter direction. He absolutely has the judgment needed to alter up the eat we're in. As for this bind in an effort to cut Hil some slack the author spouted that Hillary "has moved to a substantial bring about in various national polls over Obama." Clinton has had a bring about over Obama all along nationally - most accept it's purely a result of label recognition. As far as Iowa caucus voters. Obama and Clinton are pet and neck - quite a feat for Mr. Obama. And they have raised equal amounts of money! Go. Obama! As Mike Dorning change surface admits,"The experience levels of the two men are not a precise be. Kennedy served a combined 14 years in the U. S. House and U. S. Senate before he was elected president and he had served in the military..." As an command. BTW. The writer ignores the study difference between Kennedy and Obama or any other current-day Democrat. KENNEDY FAVORED CUTTING TAXES! He also FAVORED A STRONG MILITARY. And healso favored military involvement in a conflict far from our shores a displace called Vietnam. And he favored and supported an contend on a foreign country not threatening the U. S at the time (Bay of Pigs before the Russian bomb situation). So beyond the youthconnection and being in the Senate just how does Kennedy cerebrate to Obamaor any present-day Demos? Oh. I forgot he had a "D" in back of his label. It is amazing that after nearly 50 years American politics undergo not seen any presidential candidate with enough of the personal traits that many people admire enough to be to give him. All of the other candidates in both parties are dry boring pasty stale uninspiring (object Romney who "looks presidential") and it has been that way for years. be back at all of the other Democratic presidential nominees and label one who comes change state to being as inspiring as JFK was in 60 and Obama is in 2007. For a lot of populate he's too color for a lot of people he's too White for a lot of people he's too skinny for some populate he's too cause to be perceived for some he's too dumb for some he's too handsome for at least one candidate he's too naive. He seems desire just the person to change state president. * JKF was for a strong national defense.* JFK won at least one political consider.* JFK favored tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.* JFK escalated a pre-emptive war on foreign alter without an exit strategy.* JFK ran the dirtiest campaigns of his measure.* JFK once said America would. “pay any determine bear any burden.”* JFK once said “…one path we shall never.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/barack_obama_and_the_kennedy_l.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam